Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, noted that Arvind Kejriwal’s control and influence over the witnesses were evident from the fact that said witnesses only found the courage to testify after Kejriwal’s arrest. The court further held that there was a lack of evidence establishing malice on the part of the investigating agency and therefore, dismissed his petition.

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held, “The control and the influence which he has on the witnesses, is prima facie borne out from the fact that these witnesses could muster the courage to be a witness only after the arrest of the petitioner, as highlighted by the learned Special Prosecutor. Also, it establishes that the loop of evidence against the Petitioner got closed after collection of relevant evidence after his arrest”. 

Arvind Kejriwal, represented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, asserted that the arrest was merely an ‘insurance arrest’ to prevent Kejriwal from leaving jail after being granted bail in the PMLA case. There was no substantial material for the arrest, and the CBI had no intention of arresting Kejriwal, Senior Advocate Singhvi argued. It was further argued that this is an exceptional case where the arrest under PMLA, the predicate offense, occurred before the arrest in the CBI case.

Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that there was no justification for the arrest solely for interrogation or investigation, as Section 41A of the CrPC mandates serving a notice under Section 41A CrPC and refraining from arresting the person if they cooperate with the investigation. Despite this mandate, no prior notice under Section 41A was given to Kejriwal before his arrest, added Senior Advocate Singhvi. 

While concluding the arguments, Senior Advocate Singhvi argued that the arrest was an act of legal malice, as it was unnecessary. He emphasized that the historical triple test for arrest was not satisfied. Kejriwal, being the Chief Minister of NCT of Delhi, posed no flight risk, had no criminal antecedents, was not a habitual offender, and was unlikely to interfere with evidence or not cooperate.

On the other hand, Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh, representing the CBI, countered all arguments from Kejriwal. He clarified that a Notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. could be issued to anyone acquainted with the case facts, not just witnesses, and the initial Notice to Kejriwal aimed at gathering relevant information. SPP Singh argued that the nine-hour interrogation was a necessary part of the investigation, within the Investigating Agency's prerogative. The CBI claimed that Kejriwal was one of the primary figures behind the scam. 

SPP Singh highlighted that five key suspects had been arrested, with the CBI charging other accused individuals without detaining them unless necessary. SPP Singh argued that Kejriwal’s arrest adhered to legal procedures, with the Special Judge reviewing substantial evidence, including financial misconduct linked to Mahadev Liquors and election funds. 

The court emphasized that human liberty is a precious constitutional value but is subject to regulation by valid legislation. The court stressed that while criminal law should be enforced without obstruction from the accused's strategies, misuse of criminal law must be recognized by all courts to ensure fair investigations, which are essential to protect victims' rights and the societal interest in lawful crime investigation.

Further, the court accepted the arguements of SPP Singh, noting “It is not on account of malice or a well-planned strategy, as has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the accused was not arrayed as an accused or arrested soon after the registration of the FIR. It is only after sufficient evidence was collected and the sanction was obtained in April, 2024 that the CBI proceeded with further investigations in this matter, against the petitioner and his eventual arrest”. 

The court further agreed with the submission of SPP Singh that Kejriwal was not an ordinary individual but the Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party, which governed Punjab. The court observed that key witnesses were initially unwilling to come forward due to his influential position. It was only after his arrest that witnesses from Punjab came forward to record their statements, and two of these witnesses became approvers against Kejriwal.

The court also highlighted Kejriwal’s position noting that he was a distinguished recipient of the Magsaysay Award and a convenor of the Aam Aadmi Party. However, the court noted that the control and influence he exerted over the witnesses were evident from the fact that these witnesses only found the courage to testify after Kejriwal’s arrest. Furthermore, the court noted that the chain of evidence against Kejriwal was completed following the collection of pertinent evidence after his arrest.

Accordingly, the court held the arrest to be legal and without malice. The court further dismissed the petition. 

For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, N. Hariharan, Ramesh Gupta, and Vikram Chaudhary with Advocates Vivek Jain, Mohd. Irshad, Rajat Bhardwaj, Punya Rekha Anagra, Sharian Mukherji, Amit Bhandari, Karan Sharma, Rajat Jain, Sadiq Noor, Mohit Siwach, Rishikesh Kumar, Kaustubh Khanna, Prateek Bhalla, Mudit Jain, Muskan Khurana and Siddharth S. Yadav
For Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor D.P. Singh with Advocates Manu Mishra, Shreya Dutt, Imaan Khera, and Achal Mittal

Case Title; Arvind Kejriwal v CBI